Nobel winner slams Bible as ‘handbook of bad morals’

"So do people who speak of tolerance and then use the word hate to scare people into thinking like them."

Uh, yeah, that DOES sound like a lot of christians I've known!

Technically you don't have to die to win a Darwin. You just have to make sure you can't reproduce and that you haven't already reproduced or that you destroy any offspring you have sired in the event of either killing or sterilizing yourself.

Well, yes, that's true, but most are posthumous, I gather.

At any rate, they are all deserved.

how are they the same?

Well you get paid for the nobel, and you get paid... oh, never mind.

Well you typically make some kind of breakthrough that significantly furthers the human race for a nobel prize. For a Darwin award you typically have to do something really stupid that a normal person would think is really stupid and/or dangerous and accidentally remove yourself from the gene pool without successfully passing on your DNA before you do.

So really they are both about furthering the human race, one just has fewer winners and pays better.

They are both meaningless and typically liberals win these awards.

Yeah, I can see how that would make a wingnut just a wee bit jealous and dismissive.

Of an award that continues to depreciate?

Well the Darwin Awards have been getting pretty bland as of late.

You're completely wrong in your argument, we as humans actually do think of ourselves as the top of the food chain.

We are at the top of OUR food chain , kind of difficult to be humble about that , until you consider viruses and bacteria and such .

never heard a statement that ignorant before.

we are the top of the food chain! not always great to think about, but it doesn't take much to realize.

I agre with you on Saramago, he's really worth reading; I don't think Zeigeist is a very reliable source, though... Don't get me wrong, it might in fact help expand one's horizons but I think it should be seen with extreme caution and constant questioning. Just sayin'...

ur right, its not the most viable source, but it sure does make a hell of an argument. i'm not saying listen to the whole movie as truth, but you simpoly cannot deny the patterns of the universe. the universe is the only true god. its what people are wroshipping even when they think they're worshipping an actual person.

poeple also need to start celebrating themselves instead of this totally fucked system of lies and manipulation

???

If the source isn't reliable, then why rely on it at all?

If it falsely leads people to worship a false deity, that's ok?

Sorry, that makes no sense.

i take what i said back. zeitgeist IS a credible, reliable, viable source. its a simple explanation of the phenomenons of the universe which are the underlaying of the first pagan rituals and beliefs. every religion has pretty much just given different names and titles for the SAME events that happen.

the fact that this nobel prize winner is slamming the bibnle is actually very reassuring cuz it shows that not just "crazy" people denounce the bible. the bible is simply a tool of manipulation that is used by the ruling class, church, politicians, etc, to control the masses.

problem is most people are too ignorant, or just dont want to believe that they're part of this corrupt system. they figure paying the church with weekly dues will forgive them of their sins... but what they dont think about is why they should be seeking forgiveness for their lack of curiosity in the church and ITS credibility...

worship the sun, not the son (of god), worship the seasons, cherish the planet, live life to the fullest, dont go to church, just be a good person and all else will just work itself out.

Let me just put this out there...a historic Jesus never existed. The book 'The Jesus Puzzle' by Earl Doherty lays it all out using the Bible itself. Very illuminating. Or just listen to 'Bible Geek' podcast with Robert Price. That dude forgets more about the Bible and Christianity then most people have ever known.

Thank you, hp, it's about time someone had the courage to say it!

The only thing that really needs to be said here is that Zeitgeist's first part is so filled with inaccuracy and poor scholarship that it is quite thoroughly useless.

The individual concepts (such as a pagan origin for certain aspects of Christianity) are not necessarily unarguable, but the fact of the matter is that the video mangles this and other fringe theories and tenuously strings it all together.

Please do some independent research into the claims made by the video, and you will find that the vast majority of the theories included in some way, shape or form have been discredited or disregarded by the scholarly community and are held only by scholars on the fringe or by those who flock to theories of conspiracy.

I love penguins...they have their own book...

I have found a ancient scroll in my backyard that reads.......'Noah threw them off the ark because of their wild ways and strange sexual inclinations.'

"just a book"?

Not what the christians say. They call it the greatest story ever told, the world's best seller, and other bombastic names.

Its content HAS affected the world's history, to major affect, and not always to the good. Hardly a book to be dismissed as unimportant.

Any book so badly written so as to require "expert" interpretation is always going to be controversial and get distorted. The US has, what, 30,000 different denominations, each interpreting the bible in its own little parochial way. Not to mention that if you get ten christians and give them the same verse, you may likely get ten different interpretations of that same verse.

Not a book to instill a lot of confidence in an open minded, rational reader.

I know a lot of liberal christians dismiss the stuff they morally disagree with. In a modern, educated society, that is only to be expected, but in reality, if one looks at the things it really contains and the attitudes it displays towards those that do not adhere to its structures, its moral compass is a little skewed by modern standards.

Ask yourself: what standards do liberal christian denominations use when they dismiss the "bad" stuff? You know what I mean, the verses that promote slavery, stoning adulterers, killing snarky teens, not eating certain foods, and so forth.

If those standards are not in the bible, if we are going to ignore some stuff but adhere to others, WHERE do those standards come from? What is the rationale?

If the book is going to promote outmoded values such as slavery, stoning and outright conquering of neighboring States, then why do we speak of it as being a good moral compass?

Of the Ten Commandments, depending on which version of the bible you use, only the last 3 or 4 have anything to do with real morality pertaining to human interactions or relationships. The rest ALL pertain to religious restrictions such as keeping the Sabbath, not worshiping other gods, and so forth.

Of those three or four, NONE of them were introduced as NEW by the hebrew religion, or the christians who co-opted the Talmud as their old Testament.

So tell me again, just how IS the bible any kind of a moral teacher, other than of Stone Age values?

Jeez, that rant was totally uncalled for. I never said it's a moral teacher. I said you should blame the people who wrote the book and the people who use the book as a means to show their own hatred. The book is inanimate, the people do the harm.

But without the book, where would that excuse come from? (I am not targeting you here, particularly, but I want to get this in here for general information.)

Yes, its the people, but at some point, the continued use of it as an instrument of oppression stains it beyond repair.

My point is to point out the harm that is possible, and why that harm comes from - a book. it isn't that it is "just a book", but what things are taught in that book that do the harm.

Yes, anything can be misinterpreted, but the more antiquated the language, the more open to misinterpretation it is - and THIS book is unique because of the lack of real evidence as to what the content was when it was first put together, and the amount of changes that have been made to it over the centuries.

In reality, it is not a book, but a compilation of documents, very few of which we actually know who the authors were. Many of them are KNOWN to be forgeries, and have been so acknowledged as such by biblical scholars for over a century in some cases.

Take the writings of Paul, for instance, Of some 19 letters (if I remember correctly) only 7 are thought to be actually written by Paul. The others are acknowledged to be forgeries, written by we don't know who. Of those seven, even today, some three or so are beginning to be seen as possible forgeries, though that is disputed hotly.

In addition, the ONLY place where we have any information about Paul is - wait for it - from Paul's letters! I don't count Acts, because Acts is now acknowledged to have been written AFTER those letters, by one of the authors of one of the forgeries, and may have been the same guy that wrote one of the late gospels.

There is no information anywhere on just who Paul was. No verification of his birthright, where he was born, whether he really was a roman citizen, or any contemporary records of his existence at all. Just in christian writings.

Same thing with all of the others. The gospels weren't written by the disciples, either, they were anonymously written at different times, perhaps as much as a hundred years apart.

The guy that wrote Revelations was said to be a church bishop, but that isn't known for sure, and anyway, even in the early church, he was considered a loon. The book wasn't added to the canon until the thirteenth century!

So why would anybody see this as a "moral source" at all?

It isn't even good literature, except for a couple of the old testament books, and I'd bet that they've lost quite a bit upon translation!

"But without the book, where would that excuse come from?"

The blame put on religion for being such a motivator of injustice when used/misused by its recipients is really much too strong. The idea that without religion, some sort of relief would be found is an illusion. Mankind is inherently divisive, and if not for religion, the cause would likely fall on what is, in reality, the true cause of most of the conflict found in humanity's history: the finite nature of resources, such as real estate, arable land, and in the most general sense, wealth.

Even beyond that, behavioral studies in children show that we tend to adopt an "us vs. them" mentality, even when the reason is superficial and nebulous.

Yes, this book can be used to cause harm. Religion in general can be used to cause harm. But it is relatively rare that this alone is the cause of conflict, if at least on a historical scale (and saying so would be like saying the involvement of the United States in the wars of the past century were really all in the name of "freedom" and the promotion of democracy).

There will never be an absence of cause, unless by some means we can make resources unlimited and freely accessible. And who knows beyond that?

"Yes, anything can be misinterpreted, but the more antiquated the language, the more open to misinterpretation it is"

Yes, but this ignores the simple fact that the elements, when written, were not at all antiquated (and most often were written in the language of the common people). The main issue, then, is the preservation of archaic language against living ones, which does make interpretation more of a task.

However, that is why there is an emphasis in traditional branches of Christianity on the preservation of historical interpretation- that is, the idea that the Church holds the meaning of the words clearly because it not only interpreted them in the context of the time and the language of the time, but in the very fact that the creeds of the ancient Church were established before the books found in the Bible were assembled into their known form and canonized.

I don't want to get too far into the subject, because it really does get dull and rather wordy at points, but the book(s) were intended to be without separation from their interpretive body. Think what you may about that idea, but that was the intention.

"Take the writings of Paul, for instance, Of some 19 letters (if I remember correctly) only 7 are thought to be actually written by Paul. The others are acknowledged to be forgeries, written by we don't know who. Of those seven, even today, some three or so are beginning to be seen as possible forgeries, though that is disputed hotly."

The total is 14. The authenticity of the 7 is not actually 'hotly disputed', although that may have been the case in the mid-nineteenth century when suggestion of only 4 being authentic arose.

The only letter with near unanimity in its identification as a forgery is Hebrews, and another 4 are considered so by a majority of scholars. 2 others are split down the middle in terms of how they are placed.

"The gospels weren't written by the disciples, either, they were anonymously written at different times, perhaps as much as a hundred years apart."

I know of no scholars that seriously consider this to be the case. Amongst the majority of scholars the latest date for the composition of the Gospels (John, specifically) is 110.

"[Revelation] wasn't added to the canon until the thirteenth century!"

This is untrue. Though its inclusion was contested at the time, it was ultimately included in the canon along with the rest of the New Testament in the 4th century.

Well, that's all I wanted to point out. I don't really intend to argue with you, but since I spent a bit of time studying this subject I wanted to point out what I saw as a few clear errors (other ideas you put forward are arguable) in your post.

Of course, the first response was mostly my own analysis of things.

The assignment was for 4 pages, double spaced. Turtle, I'll have to knock off a grade point since yours is only 3. Rwahren, yours is complete.

However, you both turned it in to the wrong place.

... and bible-lovers aren't?

Pot, kettle, black.

LOL!!

Nope. They aren't. Not if they actually understand what they believe instead of using it to control other people or make themselves feel better. I have a lot of friends who are gay or strong "non-believers" in whatever sense, and they all know exactly where I stand. But, we're still all friends. I except them the same way they have to except me.

except or accept?

... Likewise, I know what I believe, and I don't force my beliefs on others, unlike this person here who is trying to force his religion of atheism onto my beliefs.

Atheism isn't a religion. It's the absence of religion.

Nice point Nettle. Sad that has to be explained time and time again.

"Atheism isn't a religion. It's the absence of religion."

While I agree with you here, I think the real problem is the semantics of the statement.

Opposition to the above wording is justified, but replacing 'religion' with 'belief' will net nearly as much uproar without any real cause.

In those cases, I'm afraid that non-religious individuals tend to see 'belief' as being a bogeyman term which unduly categorizes them with those that profess a belief in a God or whatever may be beyond that concept.

The common claim is that one is not a possessor of an element, but the non-possessor. However, actual non-possession is only possible to those completely alien to the concept of belief itself.

If you are aware of a concept, and warrant enough credit to oppose it intellectually, then you still possess a belief, or a creed if you choose.

The separation between believers and non-believers, in those terms, is an illusion of context. If the base idea was that there is no divinity, then those who held to the idea of the existence of such an entity would be the non-believers.

What a mess of words this all is. I suppose the point is that while it is quite a stretch to place atheism in the category of a 'religion' (though for some individuals the difference is merely superficial), the opposition to atheism as a 'belief' is without such strong support. I don't bring this up to accuse you of suggesting anything I'm speaking against here, but I'm simply moving along with the idea as I have a fervently atheist friend who opposes the use of all such terms.

Anyway, I hope I made sense.

No. It didn't. Sorry.

Atheism is a belief/religion. Because there is no absolute proof that there is or that there is not a God makes both of our beliefs faiths. Insult the enemy as much as you want. Facts are facts... you place faith in a religion.

You're not anyone's enemy.

Atheism - "disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings."

Religion - "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

Atheism =/= Religion

You've clearly never read the Bible, and have never talked to a normal theist. Shame.

The Bible teaches love for your fellow man. It teaches that hard work is rewarded. It teaches kindness, compassion, faith, and above all, to treat people how you want to be treated.

If these are "bad morals," I'd love to hear what this asshole thinks are good morals...

So the moral of, "let the horny and potentially violent village folk rape my own daughters rather than the angels who came to visit," is a good moral? Or am I taking that story out of context?

When you read Of Mice and Men, did you take from it that you should go out and kill people if you have mental instabilities?

When you read Fight Club, did you think it was OK to blow up a credit building to level the slate for everybody?

When you read The Alchemist, did you think it was OK to make arab women wait on you hand and foot?

The mature, objective reader takes away from the Bible what is applicable to their own life, in their own time, just like you do with *all books*.

The problem is that the bible is supposed to be a book with lessons that guide peoples lives. Fight Club and Of Mice and Men were not, nor do people take them that way.

seems as if you are a practicing bigot towards people of faith. Thank you for contradicting yourself

"Fight Club and Of Mice and Men were not, nor do people take them that way."

Who says that's true? You can take anything away from a book that you want to. I know that Fight Club certainly gave me a new perspective on worry, material possession, and passion.

The Bible is a book that has taught many people solid life lessons, so it has that description constantly attached to it. It was also written a LONG time ago, so of course the culture was different then.

You actually got moral insight from Fight Club that advanced your life in some significant way? I'm not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing. Regardless, I'm pretty sure that nobody went out and blew up abandoned buildings because of a message that was read from the story.

As far as the bible goes, people have been prosecuted, executed and tortured because of stories in the book. Witches have been burned because the book says witches are evil. Science had been held back for centuries because it was unthinkable to question the books concepts of origins and knowledge of how the universe works. What other books that are not of a religious context have done so much potential damage to the evolution of the human society?

Have you tried reading it to see what it says for yourself, that way you don't have to worry about misinterpretation.

I agree there should not be any such books . If there weren't any they would write them , They cannot seem to stop tinkering with them at any rate . So , how do you fight said books ? If the pen is still mightier than the sword , perhaps with more books ? History shows zealots revert to the sword , when they fail to win hearts and minds . I say write more books . Better ones .

Yes I have notfooled, but, as a young child I was always told what it meant. That right there, was the mistake that they made...

and in they, I mean the Priests and everyone else...

Read your post again paying attention to the last sentence and see if you can better understand the vitriol directed at you.

Oops there I go assuming you have depth again. Never mind.

Is ignorance really bliss like they say?

It is not the "word of God" - it is the words of a collection of ignorant and manipulative, misogynous and superstitious nomadic men.

Were there a being that could create everything out of nothing, I doubt that it would do something as trivial as write a book that portrayed it as a vengeful psychopath. That is purely a human project.

Religious humans have a dangerous sense of self importance which puts an unfair burden on people that realize if the being that created the universe wanted us to worship it, it clearly has the power to convey that without all this confusion. So the logical conclusion is that it does not care what we do or does not exist.

I agree, the Peace Nobel is a joke, and has always been a joke. However, the Literature one is still pretty decent, even if in the past they've overlooked some amazing people to give it to someone mildly mediocre for political purposes. The Literature Nobel still has some credit, especially for people who actually deserved it like Saramago.

And if you actually believe Saramago to be "crazy" simply because he's openly critical of the Bible then you clearly have no clue or perspective as to who this guy is.

I understand that he's an anti-semite, that's enough to discredit most of what he says.

While I don't want to defend anti-semitism, that actually makes him MORE credible, since the bible is such an anti-semitic work, at least in the old testament. It sure as heck spawned an anti-semitic religion!

There's a lot of ignorance going on here. You guys realize that by "Bible" the article is referring to the Old Testament? And do you also realize that the Old Testament is the Jewish holy book?

rwahrens, do you think Judaism is an anti-Semitic religion? Is that a self-loathing Jews joke or a misunderstanding?

mrpibb, everything you have to say is quite wrong.
1) We're not talking about the Peace Prize
2) Who said the Bible was only about Cain and Able? Why do you even bother debating things online if you can't read or think critically?
3) You need to check your stats. Also do you really think the Old Testament is full of good morals? Maybe you should read it. The New Testament has some philosophical value. The Old Testament is a horror novel.
4) You will not be living after this life either. If thinking so keeps the fear of death at bay, then good for you, but I hope you don't sacrifice this life because of your delusions of being owed another. Also, by your code, you are not supposed to be reveling in the idea of others going to hell. If it turned out that you are right and we are living in a cheap, stupid fairy tail world rather than a glorious, self-sufficient universe, then that attitude will land you in fire along with everyone else.

Doug, the "bible" as written is the basis for the christian religion. the old testament was the basis for belief in god and the new was the "good news" where christ came into the picture and "saved" us all.

As such, one cannot separate the old from the new.

Since the bible was the basis for and anti-semitism of the christian religion, proven by centuries of oppression and death of Jews at the hands of the church and "good" christians, I think my evaluation is closer than you think.

Because some people have interpreted the bible in an anti-Semitic way does not make the book anti-Semitic. If a person has an agenda, they can take away nearly any message they want from any book, ever.

How do you know he won't be living after this life. If you were a christian you would know that everyone goes to heaven or hell. I am an atheist and a scientist and I believe there is a continuation od life in a pperhaps a parallel Universe, after all We humans have a very limited brain and intelligence but I still think there are a lot of new discoveries to be made if the Corrupt governments do not monopolize and declare all discoveries secret and use them for themselves.

DougAtheist

1) The Peace Prize is in the story, and therefore relevant.
2) Direct from the article: "The book is an ironic retelling of the Biblical story of Cain, Adam and Eve's son who killed his younger brother Abel"
3) I have read the Old Testament. It's a story of law and judgment, yet it also points to the love of God. Maybe you should give it a thorough read.
4) I'm glad you have such overwhelming proof that the afterlife consists of nothing. I'm astonished to know that you've spoken with one who has died or experienced death and its proceedings. C'mon, my faith is just as much a faith as your's is. Give me proof if it's not.

'I have read the Old Testament. It's a story of law and judgment, yet it also points to the love of God. Maybe you should give it a thorough read.'

I have given the Bible a 'thorough read'. Where does Lot having sex with his daughters fall into 'law and judgement'? (You'd think his daughters would have disliked him for trying to give them away for gang raping but I suppose it was a different time).

DrPepper,

1) Jesus! No it isn't. Do you really not realize that there are more Nobel Prizes than the Peace Prize? This is the Nobel Prize for Literature. Seriously dude, get it together.
2) Again, who said the Bible was only about Cain and Able? This is an ironic work of fiction highlighting an example of the bad morals contained in the Bible. Nothing more.
3) Oh, I've read it. It's an excellent horror novel. It has been extremely successful in controlling men with fear for a very long time. An impressive novel indeed, but you've got serious problems if you use it as a moral guide. Again, the New Testament is different, but seems to be ignored by most American Christians. My atheism is directly informed by my former Christianity. Otherwise I wouldn't realize how perverted the book is to begin with and how far it's been perverted even from that.
4) Of course I haven't spoken with the dead. They're dead. Where's your proof? Just listen to yourself. Mine is not a faith, just observation. There is no reason to believe that there should be an afterlife. On the other hand it is VERY easy to see how frightened mortals would come up with such a concept to calm their fears. There's not even anything wrong with that per se, but it's very obvious. I mean just listen to Ragan up there trying to reason his way out of death.

Yeah, what Doug just said... good stuff.

hpseaton,
You'll find that the most minute and what seems irrelevant stories point to a larger truth. In Lot's case, he had just escaped Sodom/Gomorrah after he had nearly sacrificed his daughters for rape to the people. The irony that God would have him be raped by his daughters is a good "eye for an eye" moral lesson, right?
DougAtheist,
1) You just called the prize irrelevant. If it is so, don't bring it up as an advance in our debate.
2) I gave you a direct quote from the article. Is that not enough proof???
3) The Old Testament is a different time, but the lessons are still the same. Just because you've abandoned a faith, doesn't mean your enlightened...
4) Right, observation, because you've observed the afterlife right? C'mon, get your argument together.

The bible is the NUMBER ONE BOOK every year....and the number two book is so far behind that no book will ever catch up to how many people get it yearly.

He's just mad that he doesn't get that much circulation.

And Fox news is the number one rated cable 'news' network. Both facts only prove that ignorance is highly contagious and best avoided if possible.

As we all know by Obama becoming President.

It cuts so many ways. You should stop while you're behind.

Congratulations on contradicting yourself. But then you *are* a contradiction.

I didn't contradict myself.

I never said that the Bible's circulation by the billions means that it's true.

You did.

Wow, you are incredibly thick.

When point 1 can't even sink in (a simple and presumably honest mistaking by you of which Nobel Prize was being referenced), then there's no hope discussing even simple topics with you, let alone complex ones like religion.

Just wow.

two quick things...

mrpibb are you serious with 'The irony that God would have him be raped by his daughters is a good "eye for an eye" moral lesson, right?' That God is such a card! Nothing like incest to teach good morals! Oh well.

and Doug...that's just Jammer's style. He doesn't like the long debates full of those tiresome facts and figures he'd much rather go for the 'I didn't say that' 'yes you did' 'no I didn't' etc. etc.

I wasn't talking about Jammer. I'm familiar with his lack of debate skills, but his posts were irrelevant add-ons and have been ignored.

I was talking to mrpibb.

You question my debating? I bring up facts and relevant information that rebuts yours. Your only excuse for debate is to insult and mock the opposing argument. That's quality skill there!!! You think I'm narrow minded? I've been an atheist before; I know all of the tactics to trying to disprove God there is. I've been where you were. There's no argument you have that I haven't thought of before and debated with a Christian. Think of your own narrow-minded tactics before calling one thick-skulled.

Dude, I was just pointing out that you have a tin ear. Your newest post just reinforces it. You rebutted nothing.

My point was: you made a simple mistake about which Nobel Prize was in the article, I pointed it out, and you couldn't even hear or accept that simple mistake. That speaks leagues to your ability to listen and consider information.

You can claim to have considered as many things as you like, but the evidence says you haven't deeply considered much.

Copy n paste!

dunno for sure, but I sometimes think maybe the real culprit is less the writings and more the readers and interpreters.

The better written a book is, the less interpretation it needs.

Religious books are written to allow for/require MORE interpretation, as that constitutes job security for the clergy.

They already tell everyone else how to live . Or did you not notice the pro life , anti gay , send your prayer dollars here rhetoric ?

Everyone tells everyone else how to live without any book.

If you are human you already do it.

The Vedas are not that bad at all, they should be allowed to remain.

I can't live without 'The Tao of Pooh' so there!

You are so rite.it is about time that we stand up and say that religion is a farse,fairy tales and for a book of morals BULLSHIT! Religion has done nothing but to produce hate and killing.It is time for our goverment to get rid of this crap.

He didn't state anything remotely intelligent about the Bible other than how he doesn't agree.

Publicity stunt and you bought it as being bold. hahahaha.

And if you buy that book...you really bought the publicity stunt.

Jammer as usual you sally forth guns blazing, but forgot to bring the ammo.

How can one say something intelligent about a book that is nothing but a vast contradiction?

If you are a believer, good for you. But damn it man I'm going to cheer on any of those odd chaps who don't believe and aren't afraid to acknowledge that fact.

In an ignorant manner.

It's best that he said he doesn't believe then prove he doesn't get what he's talking about